The most common objection people have to our research: "Too many people would have been involved to pull off such a massive hoax." Well, with trillions of taxpayers' dollars at hand, this operation could certainly afford contracting many individuals (under a gag order and on a need-to-know basis). Meet the real - and unreal - persons, companies & entities assigned to carry out this gigantic, media & military-assisted psyop.

According to the below post by Simonshack, I was curious for the most common surnames and the numbers which would be statistically correct in The United States. Therefor I've tried to find a site which displays the most common surnames and their numbers in the U.S. See below Simon's post for the results I've found. I was not sure if you guys did this allready, but if so... then too bad for me:

THE CANTOR "TWIN PATTERNS"by Simon Shack - Aug 10, 2010

Throughout this long yet fascinating "vicsim" research, I have noticed one particular thing when it comes to wrap our heads around it all (not saying I myself have managed to wrap it all up yet!..). This one thing has to do with the coincidental repetition of given patterns which, as I see it, are quite extraordinary. Yet, many people seem to shove the 'haphazard coincidences' aside - in favor of other oddities which arouse their thinkbone more compellingly. However, I believe no crime investigation can totally ignore issues of 'statistical probability', so allow me to set forth my latest observations.

I have compared and merged two separate listings of the alleged Cantor Fitzgerald victims of 9/11. The 'merging' was necessary as the approx. 360 names of each listing do not always match - don't ask me why! Let us also, for now, ignore the fact that the official Cantor death-toll reported by the media was "658". There is simply no complete listing of those 658 names to be found anywhere on the internet. So, we are dealing here with 2 listings of 360 names of alleged employees of one single company.

What strikes me as extraordinary is the amount of identical/similar surnames of employees allegedly working at Cantor Fitzgerald. Moreover, I wonder, just how common is it for pairs of brothers/sisters/cousins to clinch a plum job (and work in the same offices) of a top-notch NY financial company? Out of the approx 360 names listed, we may find as many as 29 groupings of identical surnames (totalling 70 employees). Note that there are such groupings for almost every single letter of the alphabet in the Cantor Fitzgerald 'victim lists'.

That's interesting. I would have guessed the opposite - that our better judgment was subtle enough to pick up on fakery although the chances of double and triple names are actually pretty high.

The idea that the double triple names are not only statistically improbable but that we didn't recognize how improbable they are should make us re-examine other things we may have taken for granted as suspicious.

Thanks for doing this little math game!

If you wanted to really prove the case, you might want to spell "statistically" correctly and measure the chances for 400.

If the numbers are still low for 400 names, it would be absurd for anything lower - like 360 - to be considered "likely." Would you be willing to recalculate for us and show everyone how you came to this conclusion? :)

hoi.polloi 4 Oct 14 2010, 12:41 AM wrote: That's interesting. I would have guessed the opposite - that our better judgment was subtle enough to pick up on fakery although the chances of double and triple names are actually pretty high.

The idea that the double triple names are not only statistically improbable but that we didn't recognize how improbable they are should make us re-examine other things we may have taken for granted as suspicious.

Thanks for doing this little math game!

Well, I have to admit that these numbers are not accurate enought to prove that it is very unlikely to have those names within one company of about 300 persons.

If you have 1 person, the probability that this person has a name which is listed among the 200 most common names, is about 25%

So if this person is going to work for a company which has 200 employees, the probability that one of them has the same name is also 25%

But the percentages are much much lower for the less common names. So I guess that you see what I mean.

To be sure if Cantor has some really extraordinary numbers, you have to do a calculation of probability, I guess. Unfortunately I am no good with these type of calculations, so if there is some one who is, then go ahead please. I also am afraid that it will take a while to do a representative calculation.

hoi.polloi 4 Oct 14 2010, 12:41 AM wrote: If you wanted to really prove the case, you might want to spell "statistically" correctly and measure the chances for 400.

If the numbers are still low for 400 names, it would be absurd for anything lower - like 360 - to be considered "likely." Would you be willing to recalculate for us and show everyone how you came to this conclusion? :)

Sure I would like to do that:

ABATE:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00144Statistically out of 300: 0,00432Statistically out of 400: 0,00576

ADAMS:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,15313Statistically out of 300: 0,45939Statistically out of 400: 0,61252

BURKE:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,04418Statistically out of 300: 0,13254Statistically out of 400: 0,17672

BRENNAN:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,0179Statistically out of 300: 0,0537Statistically out of 400: 0,0716

CAHILL:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00748Statistically out of 300: 0,02244Statistically out of 400: 0,02992

CANGELOSI:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00057Statistically out of 300: 0,00171Statistically out of 400: 0,00228

COLAIO (NOT LISTED):Cantor Fitzgerald: 2

COLEMAN:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,07734Statistically out of 300: 0,23202Statistically out of 400: 0,30936

EGAN:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00834Statistically out of 300: 0,02502Statistically out of 400: 0,03336

GALANTE:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00137Statistically out of 300: 0,00411Statistically out of 400: 0,00548

GALLAGHER:Cantor Fitzgerald: 3Statistically out of 100: 0,02524Statistically out of 300: 0,07572Statistically out of 400: 0,10096

GRAZIOSO:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00011Statistically out of 300: 0,00033Statistically out of 400: 0,00044

GARDNER:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,0514Statistically out of 300: 0,1542Statistically out of 400: 0,2056

HOFFMAN:Cantor Fitzgerald: 4Statistically out of 100: 0,049Statistically out of 300: 0,147Statistically out of 400: 0,196

JONES:Cantor Fitzgerald: 3Statistically out of 100: 0,50517Statistically out of 300: 1,51551Statistically out of 400: 2,02068

KELLY:Cantor Fitzgerald: 3Statistically out of 100: 0,09652Statistically out of 300: 0,28956Statistically out of 400: 0,38608

LYNCH:Cantor Fitzgerald: 4Statistically out of 100: 0,04243Statistically out of 300: 0,12729Statistically out of 400: 0,16972

MC CARTHY:Cantor Fitzgerald: 4Statistically out of 100: 0,003004Statistically out of 300: 0,009012Statistically out of 400: 0,012016

MONAHAN:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00558Statistically out of 300: 0,01674Statistically out of 400: 0,02232

MORRIS:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,11557Statistically out of 300: 0,34671Statistically out of 400: 0,46228

MURPHY:Cantor Fitzgerald: 4Statistically out of 100: 0,11139Statistically out of 300: 0,33417Statistically out of 400: 0,44556

PALAZZO:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00114Statistically out of 300: 0,00342Statistically out of 400: 0,00456

PEREZ:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,18109Statistically out of 300: 0,54327Statistically out of 400: 0,72436

ROSENBAUM:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00333Statistically out of 300: 0,00999Statistically out of 400: 0,01332

ROSENBLUM:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00153Statistically out of 300: 0,00459Statistically out of 400: 0,00612

SHEA:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,01189Statistically out of 300: 0,03567Statistically out of 400: 0,04756

SIMON:Cantor Fitzgerald: 3Statistically out of 100: 0,02774Statistically out of 300: 0,08322Statistically out of 400: 0,11096

THOMPSON:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,23887Statistically out of 300: 0,71661Statistically out of 400: 0,95548

VALE:Cantor Fitzgerald: 2Statistically out of 100: 0,00117Statistically out of 300: 0,00351Statistically out of 400: 0,00468

How I came to these numbers:

Very simple. Let's take VALE for instance. Look up the name through the link I have supported. Check out the last column. There is the percentage of people with that name out of 100.000 people. In the case of VALE that is 1.17%. Devide 1.17 by 1000 and you will get the percentage of VALE's out of 100 people. Now multiply that by 3 or 4 to get the percentage out of 300 of 400 respectively.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a correct calculation of possibility, but to my opinion it does show that it will be rather unlikely that out of 360 people, there would be 29 sets of double surnames. Is it impossible? No! Is it probable? Hell no!

Thanks for highlighting the absurdities of the Cantor vicsims database.I believe another factor to consider is the simple fact that we're talking here about a top financial firm based in possibly the most international metropolis on the planet. If this namelist represented school-records from some remote, inter-breeding Irish village with some history of Italian immigration, it would have sounded more plausible...

"Edith (Edie) Lutnick lost her brother Gary in the World Trade Center on 9/11. She is the co-founder, Office and Executive Director of The Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund."

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn0ETDLaFjg

Is it impossible that the Lutnicks are Low-Life Liars? No. Is it probable? No?

And if it's against the Invisionfree rules to call out swindlers of the highest caliber - with a vast body of evidence to back it up - then so be it. This forum is not going to bow down to any censorship devised for the protection of duly suspected con-men and financial criminals.

Thanks for highlighting the absurdities of the Cantor vicsims database.I believe another factor to consider is the simple fact that we're talking here about a top financial firm based in possibly the most international metropolis on the planet. If this namelist represented school-records from some remote, inter-breeding Irish village with some history of Italian immigration, it would have sounded more plausible...

Is it impossible that the Lutnicks are Low-Life Liars? No. Is it probable? Hell yes !

And if it's against the Invisionfree rules to call out swindlers of the highest caliber - with a vast body of evidence to back it up - then so be it. This forum is not going to bow down to any censorship devised for the protection of duly suspected con-men and financial criminals.

You're welcome ;)

Brrrr.... that Edith Lutnick talks (or preaches.... whatever) and makes gestures in almost exactly the same way as Donna Marsh O'Connor. I think they know eachother from drama class :lol:

This from SteveWaran's website. I’m no good at Snap, but she seems a hideous crow here and at the podium, whereas Plodger is almost pretty. Reminds of the battle axe in wet weather gear from a few weeks ago, the one Fred speculates is also playing a couple of other roles. Memory too foggy now to retrieve details or know where to look.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/refere ... index.html Story Sept 10, 2002.Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost 658 people in Sept 11 terrorist attacks?. announces that it will share 4.9 million of its fourth-quarter profits with families of employees killed in attacks; payment is first installment in Cantor's previously announced plan to give families 25 percent of its profits over next five years, or 100,000 for each family, whichever is greater?

Seems so simple. Although high finance investors can't the be easiest targets for theft. Just waxing here, I'm still not 1000% that this company deals real dollars for real people. But perhaps the money never actually went into pockets as hard currency, but was imaginary, wrapped up in the "double-digit earnings growth" for the second year running in 2004 (NYT). Perhaps after substracting imaginary philanthropy of greasy CEO profits corrected to something acceptable to investors.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, in a pretrial ruling Wednesday in New York, disallowed the firm's demand for those damages from American and parent AMR Corp., whose plane struck the tower housing Cantor Fitzgerald's offices.

“Under New York law, claims for damages associated with the death of an individual are considered wrongful-death causes of action,” the judge said. “Cantor Fitzgerald is not entitled to bring such a cause of action.”

What a farce.. they are going to court to claim damages from the airline for victims that never existed.

Been doing a bit of digging. Apparently there was an article about him yesterday on a local BBC TV channel. Unfortunately I can't watch it down here. Any forum members living in the South East of England fancy giving it a gander. It starts at the 16 minute mark.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0148n0q#synopsis